페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

ing that any such act or any part or parts thereof, be submitted to a vote of the qualified electors.

(b) The Board of Elections shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate with respect to the form, filing, examination, amendment, and certification of petitions for referenda and with respect to the conduct of any referendum held under this title.

EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION

Sec. 1702. (a) When a referendum petition has been certified as sufficient, the act, or the one or more items, sections or parts thereof, specified in the petition shall not become operative, or further action shall be suspended if it shall have become operative, until and unless approved by the electors, as provided in this title. The filing of a referendum petition against one or more parts of an act shall not alter the operative effect of the remainder of such act.

(b) If, within thirty days after the filing of a referendum petition, the Secretary has not specified the particulars in which a petition is defective, the petition shall be deemed sufficient for the purposes of this title.

SUBMISSION TO ELECTORS

SEC. 1703. An act with respect to which a petition for a referendum has been filed and certified as sufficient shall be submitted to the qualified electors at a referendum to be held in connection with the first general election which occurs not less than thirty days nor more than one year from the date on which the Secretary files his certificate of the sufficiency of the petition. The District Council shall, if no general election is to be held within such period, provide for a special election for the purpose of conducting the referendum.

AVAILABILITY OF LIST OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS Sec. 1704. If any organization or group requests it for the purpose of circulating descriptive matter relating to the act to be voted on at a referendum, the Board of Elections shall either permit such organization or group to copy the names and addresses of the qualified electors or furnish it with a list thereof, at a charge to be determined by the Board of Elections, not exceeding the actual cost of reproducing such list.

RESULTS OF REFERENDUM

SEC. 1705. An act which is submitted to a referendum which is not approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon shall thereupon be deemed repealed. If a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon approve the act, it shall become operative on the day following the day on which the Board of Elections certifies the results of the referendum. If conflicting acts are approved by the electors at the same referendum, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. As used in chis section, the word “Act” shall mean the complete Act, or any part or parts thereof, specified in the petition for referendum.

TITLE XVIII–TITLE OF ACT

SEC. 1801. This Act, divided into titles and sections according to table of contents, and including the declaration of congressional policy which is a part of such Act, may be cited as the “District of Columbia Charter Act”.

Mr. DAVIS. The Members of the House who introduced these bills have been notified of this hearing and have been invited to appear before the subcommittee to testify. They have been set down as the first witnesses if they desire to testify. Some have indicated to the committee that they will be here for the purpose of testifying; others have indicated they will file statements.

There have been distributed to each member of the subcommittee one copy of H.R. 4400, which was 1 of the 23 identical bills, and also copies of the other 3 bills which vary, to which I have referred.

Each member of the subcommittee has also been furnished copies of the hearings in the 80th, 81st, and 82d Congresses, as well as hearings on the bill which passed the Senate recently, S. 1681.

We have listed the Members of the House who wish to testify in the order of seniority, and they will be called in that order.

The chairman of the District Committee has filed a statement which I will read at this time, from Chairman McMillan. His statement is:

(Thereupon, the following statement was read by Mr. Davis :)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I think the following section of the Constitution, which is identified as article I, section 8, should be inserted as a part of the record at the beginning of the hearings this morning since the only real problem confronting this committee is a constitutional problem:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States. * * *

The following is some of the history which points up the reasons for the actions taken by President Washington in designating the 10 miles square on the banks of the Potomac, known as the District of Columbia, as a Federal site to house the seat of the Federal Government and the Nation's Capital.

The basic reason originally may have been that President Washington and the other Government leaders at that time did not want to be killed.

When they were run out of Philadelphia, they ran, and we would have, too. But it will not happen now, of course, since the Federal Government has some control over the Federal site which houses the seat of our Government.

President Washington and his staff had the District of Columbia designated as the seat of the Government in 1773, long before there were any persons living in this community other than a few residents since practically all the property between the Potomac River and F Street was under water and the only means of transportation that could be used was by means of boat or horseback.

The Government has spent billions of dollars in filling in the land here on the Potomac River and practically all the property between the Potomac River and F Street was marshland and has been built up by the Federal Government.

We must not forget that the States created this Government and no one else, and the States have a right to change our Government whenever they wish and there ought not to be any feeling of hesitancy in going to the people for renewed authority if it is right. If it is right that the seat of the Government should be a territory, which I very much doubt, then it is easy to submit a constitutional amendment.

The seat of the government was moved from Philadelphia since the Congress was invaded by a mob of unruly people from Pennsylvania. The seat of the Government was set up in Princeton, N.J., and there came a great debate as to whether the seat of the Government should be permanently seated in Philadelphia or New York, President Washington decided that the seat of the government should own a Federal site where no State or city government could possibly have any jurisdiction or conflicting interest with the Federal Government. Hence, that is the reason he designated the 10 miles square on the Potomac River, known as the District of Columbia, for the seat of the National Government.

Mr. Davis. That will be entered as a statement from Chairman McMillan.

The first witness, listed in order of seniority among Members who are authors of pending bills, is Congressman Emanuel Celler.

Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, before you proceed with the hearing, I think we are stymied here. I wondered if we could get the caucus room to hold the hearing in. I had trouble getting through the hall. [Applause from the audience.]

Mr. Davis. Let us have no more outbursts. This hearing will be orderly. If you are orderly you can stay. If you are not, you will be removed from the room. Let us not have any more outbursts or applause.

Mr. Wier, you are entitled to have whatever opinion you may hold about the hearings, but all of the legislation which we have had on District matters has been heard here in this room. The other subcommittees and committees dealing with District legislation have held hearings in their respective rooms. They have not been besieged by any publicity-seeking groups, and in the Senate on this same legislation the hearing was held in their regular room and ours will be held here in our regular room.

Mr. WIER. I must disagree with you, Mr. Chairman. When we had hearings on the labor reform bill we had to move three times in order to take care of people who wanted to hear, among others, John L. Lewis and others.

Mr. Davis. That was not legislation involving the District of Columbia. The hearings on your bill dealing with unemployment compensation and all other District matters were held in this room.

Mr. WEIR. Of course I appreciate very much the chairman's action with regard to arranging for hearings on the District unemployment compensation bill, but that is something else again.

Mr. Davis. The first witness is Congressman Emanuel Celler. Is he here?

Mr. MULTER. I believe he has been detained on account of the serious illness of a member of his family.

. Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to submit a statement for insertion in the record.

Mr. Davis. Without objection.

The next witness is Congressman James C. Auchincloss. I am informed his wife is very ill.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to file his statement.

Mr. Davis. I have told Mr. Auchincloss that if circumstances permit we will have him before the committee at a future time. He can come before the committee at any time he chooses.

[ocr errors]

The next witness is Congressman Chester E. Merrow, author of H.R. 4726. Is Mr. Merrow here?

(No response.)

Mr. Davis. The next witness is Congressman Alvin E. O’Konski, the author of H.R. 4400. Is he here?

(No response.)

Mr. Davis. The next witness is Congressman Abraham J. Multer, the author of H.R. 4630 and H.R. 8081.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to take a seat at the witness chair?

Mr. Davis. You may do as you like about it. The reporter can probably hear you better in the witness chair.

Mr. MULTER. I think it will be more convenient to all concerned if I address the committee from there.

Mr. Davis. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. MULTER. For the record, I am Abraham J. Multer, Representative from the 13th District of New York.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here this morning in support of home rule for the District of Columbia.

As the outset may I say that I understand and respect the views of other Members of Congress who oppose home rule for the District. At the same time I very vigorously and sincerely disagree with them.

It is my opinion that not only should the hearings go forward expeditiously, but that a bill should then be reported to the House so that the House may work its will as to whether or not the District should have home rule and if so the form that that home rule should take.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Will the gentleman yield for a question at that point?

Mr. MULTER. Surely.

Mr. McMILLAN. I take it you do not favor the discharge rule before the Rules Committee which would not permit the House to work its will?

Mr. MULTER. I do not know as of this moment of a discharge petition, if that is what you are referring to.

Mr. McMILLAN. I am referring to the discharge rule that provides for a 1-hour debate on the home rule bills.

Mr. MULTER. I do not think a discharge petition has been filed yet but, most respectfully, I hope it will be filed and I hope to be one of the first to sign the petition, and I hope in short order the petition will be signed and the legislation will be brought before the House.

Mr, MCMILLAN. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I understood you to say you wanted the House to work its will, and the House cannot work its will on this legislation in the period of 1 hour.

Mr. MULTER. I understand your statement, but I do not agree with it and cannot subscribe to it. [Applause.]

a

Mr. Davis. Mr. Officer, if anyone attempts any applause or any other demonstration in the room, I want you to see who it is and promptly remove him.

The OFFICER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. Proceed, please, Mr. Multer.

Mr. MULTER. Addressing myself further for the moment to Chairman McMillan's remarks, it is my firm opinion that the House can work its will on any bill that is brought before it, whether it comes before it through the committee procedure of being reported by a committee and then by a rule, or without either report from the committee or a rule. And when a discharge petition is filed and it is signed by the necessary number constituting a majority of the House, that is the will of the House that the House shall determine whether they shall pass on the legislation. That is the first question the discharge petition puts before the House. The House can then decide it will not consider the matter, or, on the other hand, if the majority says it will consider the matter, the House proceeds to determine what it will do with the bill and perfect the bill if that is the will of the majority. It is my considered opinion that it is and that the majority will so express itself in favor of home rule for the District and will bring forth a bill that will give to the District a modicum of home rule, probably not as much as I would like to see, and probably not as much as other Members would like to see, but, at the expense of referring to the cliche that may be this is just a foot in the door, I for one am willing that we get that foot in the door or that toe in the door and move forward from that. If we get some kind of home rule for the District this year, after we have had some experience under it I hope we can perfect it and give to the District more and more home rule.

I have before me the letter from our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. McMillan, dated July 27, which was addresed to me and I believe to all the authors of other home rule bills, in which he states that among other things he will request the chairman of the subcommittee to insist on all authors of bills making an oral statement so that we will be able to get all the information possible on this subject.

Mr. McMILLAN. That is correct. That letter was sent to the author of each bill because this is an important question and I think every member who thinks enough of this question to introduce a bill should come in and explain how we can bypass the Constitution by delegating our legislative power to a city council. You are a good lawyer, and

a we want you to tell us how you can get by article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

Mr. MULTER. I will get to that in a moment, sir.

I would first like to say that this is rather an unusual request. The chairman himself, Mr. McMillan, has been the first to violate it by having the chairman of the subcommittee read his own statement, and I respectfully suggest that other members who desire to file a written statement be permitted to do so and to file it just as though he had made it orally.

Mr. McMILLAN. Of course, everybody may submit a statement, we will be glad to have it, but we feel any man who introduces a bill

a

« 이전계속 »